Impact of Hot Weather Conditions on the Performance of Supplementary Cementitious Materials Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The new aspects of the research should be highlighted and substantiated asthere are many papers on hot weather concreting
Abstract..the temperature used should be indicated. Also in the rest of the manuscript
Abstract.. is 6% SF used in the experiment or this is the result of the analytical work
Table 3..the ruler scale…is it correct 1m
Figure 7 vertical axis “setting”
Referencing style error throughout the manuscript
Author Response
Comment: The new aspects of the research should be highlighted and substantiated as there are many papers on hot weather concreting
Response: The authors appreciate the respected reviewer’s time and effort. Kindly, we have introduced and highlighted the new aspects of the research in section 1.2 (1.2 Study significance and objectives).
Comment: Abstract..the temperature used should be indicated. Also in the rest of the manuscript
Response: Done, as highlighted in the abstract and various parts of the revised manuscript.
Comment: Abstract.. is 6% SF used in the experiment or this is the result of the analytical work
Response: The result is related to response surface methodology analysis. Here, the 6% SF is a response changer point.
Comment: Table 3..the ruler scale…is it correct 1m
Response: Thanks for the comment, it is cm.
Comment: Figure 7 vertical axis “setting”
Response: Thanks, it is setting. It is corrected!
Comment: Referencing style error throughout the manuscript
Response: Corrected throughout the manuscript. This was attributed to a technical issue between the auto-numbering and PDF conversion software.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper investigated the performance of the binary and ternary SF-concrete mixes in hot weather. The paper is well-written and will be very useful for the academics and engineers in practice. The authors may add the photo of samples that subjected to the chloride test. The paper should be accepted for publication in this journal.
Author Response
Comment: The paper investigated the performance of the binary and ternary SF-concrete mixes in hot weather. The paper is well-written and will be very useful for the academics and engineers in practice. The authors may add the photo of samples that subjected to the chloride test. The paper should be accepted for publication in this journal.
Response: The authors appreciate the respected reviewer for his encouraging comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The material contained in the manuscript is itself simply the results of engineer work with a certain value for a concrete customer. The obtained data are not compared to the results on the hardening of concrete in normal (standard) conditions (which are to be taken as a reference for comparison). For this reason, the results of the work have neither scientific, nor practical value with regard to concrete science. Because of lack of the comparative data, the purpose of the work (Impact of hot weather conditions on…..) is not reached. Above all, the lack of the above comparative data, does not allow for making a conclusion on the regularities of the influence of SF and FA on properties of concrete hardened in hot weather conditions.
Author Response
Comment: The material contained in the manuscript is itself simply the results of engineer work with a certain value for a concrete customer. The obtained data are not compared to the results on the hardening of concrete in normal (standard) conditions (which are to be taken as a reference for comparison). For this reason, the results of the work have neither scientific, nor practical value with regard to concrete science. Because of lack of the comparative data, the purpose of the work (Impact of hot weather conditions on…..) is not reached. Above all, the lack of the above comparative data, does not allow for making a conclusion on the regularities of the influence of SF and FA on properties of concrete hardened in hot weather conditions.
Response
The authors appreciate the valuable time spent by the respected reviewer to comment on the current work. It is a performance-based study compared to the control mixtures (the reference mixture) under the same environmental conditions. Therefore, the reference mixture is there, and the comparative investigation is accordingly valid.
Reviewer 4 Report
The sentence: „Error! Reference source not found“ is very often in the text. Sometimes this is instead of Table or Figure reference. It must be corrected
Line 110: what is CC – probably CS is correct
Table 4: usually masses of compounds are recorded without decimal places
Line 150: workability 90 – 160 mm is quite wide scale, but OK
Line 165: samples or cubes is probably better term that duplicates
Line 168: Are the dimensions of cylinders correct? In accordance with Fig. 4c and Fig. 5 it seems that diameter is 100 mm and length (height) is 50 mm.
Line 195: Table 3 deals to fibres, not setting time
Fig. 7 and Fig. 10: Which points or culomns deals SF and FA?
Line 200: (0and 0) – what is it?
Line n226-231 and line 270: Is ITZ really the main reason of strengths decreases? The decrease is not explained. This is out of target of this paper and probably more complicated.
Lines 508 -541: erase
Author Response
Comment: The sentence: „Error! Reference source not found“ is very often in the text. Sometimes this is instead of Table or Figure reference. It must be corrected.
Response: We appreciate your comment, which is correct throughout the manuscript.
Comment: Line 110: what is CC – probably CS is correct
Response: Thanks for the observation, it is a typo error. Yes, it is CS.
Comment: Table 4: usually masses of compounds are recorded without decimal places
Response: Masses are modified as recommended.
Comment: Line 150: workability 90 – 160 mm is quite wide scale, but OK
Response: Appreciated! The variation is attributed to the difference in the concrete type.
Comment: Line 165: samples or cubes is probably better term that duplicates
Response: Modified as recommended!
Comment: Line 168: Are the dimensions of cylinders correct? In accordance with Fig. 4c and Fig. 5 it seems that diameter is 100 mm and length (height) is 50 mm.
Response: Your observation is correct, as shown in the figure, but this is for chloride permeability, as per ASTM 1202.
Comment: Line 195: Table 3 deals to fibres, not setting time
Response: It is Table 4, thanks!
Comment: Fig. 7 and Fig. 10: Which points or culomns deals SF and FA?
Response: Thanks, it is corrected by matching the color to the corresponding material.
Comment: Line 200: (0and 0) – what is it?
Response: This part was mainly for chloride permeability, as shown in the revised version of the manuscript. It is the same technical error due to auto-numbering with PDF conversion software; it is referring to subsections (2.2.3 and 2.2.4).
Comment: Line n226-231 and line 270: Is ITZ really the main reason of strengths decreases? The decrease is not explained. This is out of target of this paper and probably more complicated.
Response: Its absence is one of the reasons, in addition to the very low water-to-binder ratio, for maintaining the strength. However, the part highlighted by the respected reviewer will be covered in another work.
Comment: Lines 508 -541: erase
Response: Actually, this added by the journal system. It is completed as per the journal requirements.
Reviewer 5 Report
The study is of industrial and academic interests. The paper is well organized. The writing can be more concise.
1. All the cross reference of figures and tables in the paper need to be fixed, such as Line 85 (could be the problem when converting into pdf file)
2. Line 86, can the authors provide specific data on the “significantly higher than…”, such as refer Figure 1?
3. Line 111: ASTM C136 is standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregate. It is not a specification of the grading limit, as shown in Figure 3. Do the author mean ASTM C33?
4. Line 131: “SP” is not defined in the paper.
5. Line 135-137: confusing. The N, H, and U three mixes used two proquantities of 710 and 1043 kg/m3, which one corresponding to which one?
6. Table 4: to avoid confusion, recommend to add a column of steelfiber.
7. Figure 4: there is no (a) in the figure, only (b) and (c).
8. Line 200: Table 6 does not have strength data. What does the “(0 and 0)” mean?
9. Line 224-226: Figure 10 shows at 28- day, both blue and orange column are below 150 MPa, not surpass.
10. Figure 10: need to add legend, what are the blue and orange columns?
11. Line 237-238: is each curve the average of all mixtures with the same w/b ratio? Since all other factors are not controlled at the same level (such as proportion of each ingredient), it is difficulty, if not impossible, to compare the effects of w/b ratio only.
12. Figure 12: the meaning of the circles needs to be explained. Recommend to revise the 0%, 5%, etc. to 0% SF, 5% SF, etc., same for other figures.
13. Line 257: the conclusion of significant or not needs to be proved by statistical analysis.
14. Line 354-356: considering the small scope of the study, the limitation of the application needs to be clarified. An interpolation of the predication could be good, but an extrapolation could results in big errors.
15. Figure 8 and 9 etc.: we already have Figure 15 on page 15.
16. Figure 9: need to add legend and the units of the values on the curve, same for other figures.
17. Figure 10: at a specific SF dosage, say 4%, the strength increase with age till 120 days, and then it reduce? How to explain this?
Author Response
The study is of industrial and academic interests. The paper is well organized. The writing can be more concise.
Comment 1. All the cross reference of figures and tables in the paper need to be fixed, such as Line 85 (could be the problem when converting into pdf file)
Response: It seems to be due to a technical issue between the auto-numbering and PDF conversion software. The authors appreciate your understanding and cooperation.
Comment 2. Line 86, can the authors provide specific data on the “significantly higher than…”, such as refer Figure 1?
Response: We appreciate this specific note. The sentence becomes as follows: The mean temperature of 43 oC in this period is significantly higher than that stated in ACI 305R-20 of 35 oC for concrete pouring in hot weather.
Comment 3. Line 111: ASTM C136 is standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregate. It is not a specification of the grading limit, as shown in Figure 3. Do the author mean ASTM C33?
Response: We apologize for this mistake.
Comment 4. Line 131: “SP” is not defined in the paper.
Response: Thanks, it is now defined in the previous paragraph.
Comment 5. Line 135-137: confusing. The N, H, and U three mixes used two proquantities of 710 and 1043 kg/m3, which one corresponding to which one?
Response: Actually, this sentence becomes more readable this way:
The N, H, and U mixtures contained 710 kg/m3 of fine aggregates and 1043 kg/m3 of coarse aggregates, while the UH mixture contained only 719 kg/m3 of fine aggregates.
Comment 6. Table 4: to avoid confusion, recommend to add a column of steelfiber.
Response: It is done as requested.
Comment 7. Figure 4: there is no (a) in the figure, only (b) and (c).
Response: Appreciated, it is /(a) and (b) and not (b) and (c).
Comment 8. Line 200: Table 6 does not have strength data.
Response: This part was mainly for chloride permeability, as shown in the revised version of the manuscript.
What does the “(0 and 0)” mean?
Response: It is the same technical error due to auto-numbering with PDF conversion software; it is referring to subsections (2.2.3 and 2.2.4).
Comment 9. Line 224-226: Figure 10 shows at 28- day, both blue and orange column are below 150 MPa, not surpass.
Response: We are sorry, it was a typo error; we were referring to 120 MPa, as we are discussing the effect of hot weather conditions beyond 7 days.
Comment 10. Figure 10: need to add legend, what are the blue and orange columns?
Response: It is added; thanks.
Comment 11. Line 237-238: is each curve the average of all mixtures with the same w/b ratio? Since all other factors are not controlled at the same level (such as proportion of each ingredient), it is difficulty, if not impossible, to compare the effects of w/b ratio only.
Response: We totally agree with the respected reviewer; however, these curves are for the corresponding cement pastes only to reduce the effect of the mentioned parameters, as mentioned in the title of the figure.
Comment 12. Figure 12: the meaning of the circles needs to be explained. Recommend to revise the 0%, 5%, etc. to 0% SF, 5% SF, etc., same for other figures.
Response: The circles refer to the position of the temperature peak, as it simply shifts to a longer time with an increase in dosage and type and power of superplasticizer. It is notable that the temperature peak exceeded 15 hours.
Comment 13. Line 257: the conclusion of significant or not needs to be proved by statistical analysis.
Response: Modified as suggested. Please see section 3.2.
Comment 14. Line 354-356: considering the small scope of the study, the limitation of the application needs to be clarified. An interpolation of the predication could be good, but an extrapolation could results in big errors.
Response: Modified as suggested. Please see section 4.3.
Comment 15. Figure 8 and 9 etc.: we already have Figure 15 on page 15.
Response: Appreciated, this mistake is corrected for the rest of the figures.
Comment 16. Figure 9: need to add legend and the units of the values on the curve, same for other figures.
Response: Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Figure 9 and other figures have modified to include the units of strength and permeability.
Comment 17. Figure 10: at a specific SF dosage, say 4%, the strength increase with age till 120 days, and then it reduce? How to explain this?
Response: It depends on the curing conditions. Under the effect of hot weather conditions, the strength declines over time, as per the durability of the mix. This was attributed to the initial acceleration of hydration due to the hot weather; the porosity increased accordingly as there was no time to densify the structure; water escaped the sample faster; and hydration progress declined as well.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The Reviewer has not changed his opinion. The authors in their comments did not answer why they had studied the impact of hot weather conditions without comparison with the same concretes that hardened in normal conditions. This question is still open.
In the manuscript, the authors discuss only the results and make conclusions on comparative studies of the concretes with additives and without additives.
With consideration of the above, the authors are recommended to complete the manuscript with additional data (the results of the comparative study of the concretes hardened in normal conditions and in hot weather conditions for all test ages). Another recommendation is to change the idea behind this study and the conclusions made.
Author Response
Comment
The Reviewer has not changed his opinion. The authors in their comments did not answer why they had studied the impact of hot weather conditions without comparison with the same concretes that hardened in normal conditions. This question is still open.
In the manuscript, the authors discuss only the results and make conclusions on comparative studies of the concretes with additives and without additives.
With consideration of the above, the authors are recommended to complete the manuscript with additional data (the results of the comparative study of the concretes hardened in normal conditions and in hot weather conditions for all test ages). Another recommendation is to change the idea behind this study and the conclusions made.
Response
We acknowledge the significance of the point raised by the honorable reviewer. As indicated in section 1.2, the goal of this study was to look into the performance of the binary and ternary SF-concrete mixes in hot weather. Accordingly, the concrete specimens were demolded and retained in water tank for the first 7 days, then exposed to the hot weather in outdoor conditions in Riyadh. Please see section 2.2.2 and Figure 4. The purpose of the study was not to compare the standard curing to hot weather curing. Due to the high temperatures in this region, limiting the length of time for moist curing is necessary in order to speed up the construction process. Accordingly, the above curing system was employed in the study. We hope this clarification satisfied the esteemed reviewer. Please note that this explanation is also added in section 1.2 of the revised manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the explanations provided by the authors and an addition made in the article, I can give my consent for its publication. Unfortunately this article is only of practical interest, and only for a specific case. Unfortunately, the article has almost zero scientific interest, for this a mandatory comparison with samples made according to international standards is required.
